Ansigisel of Metz, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia - Sources?

Tor, is it obvious to you at all how much guessing you are doing? Or how by sleight of hand you are pretending your guesses are facts? Over and over and over.

It feels like you are avoiding what i sent you, and that's fine. you on the other hand should think about what you have declared through this discussion, it seem to me that when you do not know the answer you tell the other part that what they say is wrong just like now what I sent as answer, it is just guessing. This tells me that what we (at least a couple of us) have sent you are more facts than you admit, at least other scholars think so, there are more of them, you know. I have given you an opportunity to convince me that you have some answers but no. I just get the same story as always, everybody else is wrong and the only Source is the one you use. That is a statement With no proof, even less as a proof when you read what scholars today say about the Things Gregory wrote. They give him credit for some of his writing but they also give a conclusion on other parts as his own meaning With no substance of evidence. Yet you say he is the best Source? As it comes to Settipani, who you say it is years since you used him as evidence, yet through this discussion he has been mentioned as a Source. In other discussions you use Wiki, in one answer from a curator wiki was used as a Source 4 times.
You say i'm guessing, so do you when you relay on a Source that use his thoughts to make a decendant line even though he could have been Reading about it and kept the credibility you are asking for.

Tor, you're playing the same game over and over.

Geni uses Gregory of Tours as a source for the earliest historical Merovingians. First you claim we're not using him, then you claim we're using him wrong, then you claim we're ignoring the fact he used other sources, then you claim his sources would have been better if only he'd read these other sources.

Through it all, you're not making any actual arguments. You're not contributing anything. No sources. Just theories about who might have said what if only they had known, and somehow it's the curators' fault that we're only using sources that exist instead of sources that might have existed.

I see what you Write, but it's wrong. If you have red what I wrote to you, you would see that it is not I who says this but People that have looked into the writings of Gregory, I do not say it is wrong to use Gregory, but as other than me (line above) have said about some of his writings, there is no evidence, just what he assumed. That again is what you are saying I do and that is wrong, hat makes it more legit when Gregory does the same?
I suppose that if I read about the time before Gregory and use other books than his, it would be as legit as what he assumed. (not knowing it, no References, no evidence), he just assumed that it would have been so.

while i agree with justin and think tor is repeating the same line (that happens to be incorrect), I feel either side will only ever be able to claim a Pyrrhic victory.

that's just my opinion, i could be wrong/

drsjp

More games.

Tor, you keep imputing knowledge and method to people totally different from what is actually going on.

By the way, you say I'm playing the same over and over again, not making any arguments,not contributing.
Ok, but look at the answers you give, using the same as you did in 2014 and claiming that that is the only truth, I have given you some hints about Sources but you only claim they are faalse and propaganda. Yet other scholars don't seem to agree With you, are everybody else ignorants and you the only one With knowledge about this time, I do not think so.

Stephen, you might be right. Could be its time to give it up.

Tor is back again with his idea that he is giving us hints about sources but still not actually contributing any. He's just trolling, and I seem to be falling for it over and over.

I can see that you do not get what I say, even though you say that I don't understand.
No Justin what I said in the Message is very true, you can claim that everybody else is mistaking about Things, but actually it is you who are mistaking what I say. As I have said before there are a lot more to find instead of clinging to the same argument without any skills to see that there are more to it than just one Source. You may use Your truth and cling to it as much as you like and we who tries to seek for more info on the subject will do that. A discussion isn't about who is right all the time, it can be an eye opener to, and a discussion is no discussion if the other part always claim to have the answers, when their Source is evidently on some of it just assume (using imagination) to make his thoughts right. It seems odd to me that everybody else is wrong also the People who wrote contemporary historiy.

Evidence, Tor. Produce some evidence.

justin, i would drop the mic and walk away the bigger man. this circular argument could last into your nineties and Tor thinks he's wielding a big hammer.

sjp

Evidence doesn't matter for you, as I said earlier all the Priests, bishops and local popes had to deliver what they wrote to the Vatican and they tells us the same as the books we are refering to. Evidence don't Count in this matter, 'couse you have no evidence yourself exept what you claim are evidence. Gregory as I said just used assumption regarding the early time of the Merovingians which are confirmed by other scholars on the subject. There goes Your proof.

Stephen, you just try to save Justin and as you all say to me there is no contribution in what you say.

"Evidence don't Count in this matter"

Tor you'e just summed up 200+posts and 9 pages of your lack of argument.

"couse you have no evidence yourself except what you claim are evidence" pot, meet kettle.

"just used assumption" very non-scientific.

you've no clue what reliable data and hearsay are and the difference between them.

you need to go back to junior high school (or your nation's equivalent) and learn the scientific method and the definition of evidence.

i await your reply telling me i don't understand you.

drsjp

Justin Swanstrom C
Yesterday at 10:32 PM
Report
Tor, this is indeed a straw-man argument. It's not as complicated as you claim.

Gregory of Tours is a primary source for things that he knew from his own experience. He's a secondary source for things he got from other people. Indeed. That's the definition of primary and secondary sources. Not hard.

Gregory of Tours is probably a reliable source for things near his own time. There is no way to know whether he is a reliable source for things beyond his own time. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

In other words, there is not a single rule that you can apply to everything he wrote. He's probably not absolutely right about everything and he's probably not absolutely wrong about everything. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

You must ask yourself -- do you really believe that Gregory's account of the creation of the world has the same credibility as his account of events that took place while he was bishop of Tours? If you are not prepared to make that leap, you have already begun to understand the idea that not everything he wrote has the same level of credibility.

Then the same is true of Sulpicius. Primary source for events in his own time, and probably reliable for them. Secondary source for things he's only heard about, and no way to know whether he is reliable.

We know Gregory used Sulpicius because he tells us so, and he tells us some of what he got from Sulpicius. But he also says Sulpicius does not name their first king, then he tells us some stories he got from Sulpicius. No connected genealogy, just a few names of leaders. There's no indication from Gregory that Sulpicius had any more than that.

These are the names that later generations used to create a pedigree extending back 1500 years to the kings of Troy.

In the end, Gregory starts his connected history with Childeric, son of Merovech. He brushes off Merovech's ancestry with a short statement that "Certain authorities assert that king Merovech, whose son was Childeric, was of the family of Chlogio." Gregory had mentioned this Clogio a few sentences earlier as a king who had seized the city of Cambrai and land as far as the Somme from the Romans.

This is all relatively straightforward, but somehow you're turning it into an elaborate game where you're spinning elaborate conspiracy theories about the sources being mishandled.

to Stephen: you'r right very none Scientific to use assumption. I can agree but that is also what Gregory used regarding the time of Clodio, Merovee, Marcomar and Priam, Which are People that he assumed, was the start of the Merovingians. None Scientific, who Gregory. You must understand that I don't denie Gregorys contribution to the history, all I'm saying is there are more who do the same. There are written at least six books about what Gregory wrote about the rulers before Clovis. When he still Writes about them it seems like an assumption. If you don't have proof (as you all say) it's not reliable, it becomes an assumption. If you mean what Gregory wrote about the time before Clovis is true (without any evidence), then you can't denie the others who have been writing about the same time and when all names the same People it becomes plausible/reliable.If the others are just writing false statements then so are Gregory.

to Sharon: I do not understand Your statement, 'cause I have not said that Gregory is a source not to be used, I have said that he uses other Sources and that you put it out as it was his. Sulpicius, when it comes to him it is hard to tell what he wrote about the earliest time of the Merovingian, 'cause the first 5 books are gone, but as I said to Stephen and to Justin you can't use Gregory as a reliable Source anymore than the others who have been writing about this at the time. There is no conspiracy theories in what I'm saying. I just say that there aremore documents/books about this than it seems to, Try to look for more documents/books instead of clinging to Gregory and to say that is what's right. We have found books that name People before Clovis, like Marcomar, Pharamond and Priam and books that shows Itta, Doda and Arnoul and their relationship. When there are several books that are coinciding in their stories, it seems like that is a Clue to relayability.

Not playing this game anymore Tor.

+1

+1

Thank you, you just gave me all the answers I need, in considiring Your angagemnt in what you do.

When there are several books that are coinciding in their stories, the chances are high that the authors of the later have read the earlier authors' writings.

several books (thousands if not millions) say some sky dude snapped its fingers and made everything in 6 days. it probably one of the most read book today, and certainly of alltime. a lot of people use it as a reference. it is, however, scientifically bs. so, volume of usage and number of times referenced may no be the best measing stick

drsjp

i shall now stopping feedingtrolls (or at least give ita go).

sjp

To Harld, Yes, I agree, but when they use different Sources and conclude tha same, it means that what I have said is correct: There are more Sources than just one or two.
When I put in lines to geni on this ground, it is not because I long to be a decendant of anyone but where do I come from. When these lines are blocked (broken), With the argument of only one Source it is wrong. There are several lines that are broken because of this or they redirect them in an other way, even though the People I've put in is in thet line as a son or Brother etc.
I'm just saying that when the curators have a request to help or to see if the line is correct, that's fine but not just to brake it up for no reason.
There are actually a lot of People doing a great job out there to getthings right.

To Stephen: Yes, it is probebly the most read book today, if you look at all religions they basicly say the same for different People at different time. To say that it's BS is there no reason for, because no one (not even you) can contradict what these books say, I agree no one can say that it is absolute tru, either. Darwins theory has missing links, these days averthing comes from aliens, who came to Earth. That is just as much BS as the Holy Book.
The old testament is a history book and the New testament is guidelines how to live.
In the 80-1990 researchers found out that all life started in the sea, that waswritten in the bible 2000 years Ahead of that "discovery", this means that the researchers just confirmed what the bile said. BS?

i said i wasn't gonna feed the troll, but religion stokes the fire.

the reason they "basicly say the same for different People at different time" are because of nomads and travellers retelling old folk stories. as comedian frankie boyle once said - the creation myth was just a story to get the kids to get to sleep on the donkey ride to jerusalem.

no i wasnt there and no, i cant refute the 1/2assed biblical story of creation. however, science has taken the data available and formulated an hypothesis (no magic needed). needless to say, it looks nothing like the fairy tales.

the old testament is not a history book. it is a collection of stories based on actual events that have been spun to make an almighty god. its like me saying that my grandfather fighting on omaha beach on dday used his mythical power to win the battle. sure, dday occurred and my grandfather was there-those are facts, but his magic wand to cobntrol things is BS.

im not sure what 80-1990 means, but the origin of life has been postulated to by oceanic for quite some time. also, your biblical writers had really 2 choices - sea or land (sky is too improbable) so they guessed - 50/50 chance. perhaps they saw that fish/amphibians/aquatic reptiles looked so primitive that it must be where life came from (after god bequeethed it). bottom line, they guessed-meaning = nothing. every story in the bible has a logical scientific explanation. the trouble is getting blind followers to see logic and science as the way to explain things.

now, i'm gonna stop feeding the troll.

drsjp

my favorite "it ain't so" in Genesis is that the birds were created a day before the land animals. So even under the "day = geological age" attempt to fit Genesis with the results of science, this doesn't fit.

Being literalist about the Genesis creation story AND accepting the observations of natural science requires subscribing to the Omphalos theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis) - that God created the world with built-in evidence to mislead the researcher. The birds could have survived one night before their food sources were put in place.

Not a theory I subscribe to, but at least it's self-consistent.

This link gives you answer about Arnoul, it has been produced before from Jessica Moira Sabine Christophe-Dymock.

https://books.google.fr/books?id=XjNw5prownQC&pg=PA89&a......

page 88. It also lines Clovis backwards to Priam. Table six.

It still happens: My ancestry file is now brooken in four Places by administrators who loocks the profiles and redirect them to another line which is wrong. also see that you have done this about Arnoul. This just make problems and it will then make what you say right regarding this profiles, when you loock them.

Regarding The creation it says that he created the world in seven days, but the timeaspect you use is wrong, it says in the bible that one day is like 1000 years, 1000 years are like 7000 years, this would mean that he creation took 42000 years and then he rests for 7000 years. He created the Earth and life in parts, one day for each.

Not a primary source.